<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 08/29/2011 04:24 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">The issue is a matter of the objective pursuit of
scientific truth, on a very important impact for the future of
humanity and our planet. To defend your "skeptical" (actually,
rather dogmatic, though masquerading as skepticism) stance on the
scientific consensus regarding human impacts on climate, demands
you demonstrate that hundreds of climate scientists are making
fundamental errors, or are corrupt, as is obvious from the
following major point I made at the beginning of my post on your
"witch-hunt:"
<div> </div>
<div>An example of a "witch-hunt" on Vision2020 is the extreme
absurd claim<br>
there is international widespread incompetence or political<br>
manipulation of climate science among thousands of scientists in<br>
numerous scientific organizations around the globe, to generate
the<br>
international scientific consensus that human impacts on climate
are<br>
profound, and increasing as we continue to increase atmospheric
CO2<br>
levels and other human impacts.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You have made that claim and foisted it upon me. There is plenty of
room for agreement between climate scientists and myself. To recap:<br>
<br>
1. The earth is warming. Although certain scientists play fast and
loose with the surface temperature records with spurious updates
sometimes, this seems generally true. We've basically been warming
since the lowest point of the Little Ice Age in the 1600s or so.<br>
<br>
2. Some of the warming is due to mankind. This seems generally
straight forward, though the obvious question is "how much?". I
don't think that question has been answered perfectly, since they
(as far as I can tell) have little notion as to what the natural
causes of the temperature variations are. It wasn't the massive
burning of fossil fuels that started warming things up in the 1600s,
and it certainly wasn't involved in bringing the earth out of the
last ice age. We have, as far as I can see, no clue what natural
variation will do in the future, since we don't understand it much
at all. More warming? Cooling? Who knows? How does it compare to
Man's contribution? Again, who knows? <br>
<br>
3. The warming due to CO2 will at best raise the temperature by 1.2C
for a doubling of CO2 levels. That's straight from the latest IPCC
report. Feedbacks, positive or negative, will either amplify or
diminish this number. This is the area in which we have the least
idea of how things work. Since it can change the number from about
0.5C (if the feedbacks are negative) to whatever the latest most
alarming climate model number is.<br>
<br>
There is a lot of good science going on. Satellite data is helping,
but the window of time they cover is still far too short. There is
a lot of work on glaciers, the arctic, sea temperatures, sea level
rises, possible impacts, etc. To be skeptical of certain areas of
climate science, I don't need to posit a cabal of UN-programmed
scientists in lab coats and a mind-control ray. I'm not claiming
that anything and everything that has to do with climate science is
rubbish. It's just too early to be as overtly assured that we know
what's really happening. Don't get me started on climate models.<br>
<br>
Below, I describe in detail exactly why I think one of the foremost
climate scientists in the U.S. who is one of the "in-crowd" with the
IPCC has, at best, made some mistakes and refused to take
responsibility for them or, at worst, is being actively deceptive.
This isn't some third-string graduate assistant somewhere, we are
talking about the graph that was spammed all over the IPCC Third
Assessment Report. Read the PDF, written by one of the author's of
the paper that showed that Mann et. al screwed up the math and
introduced a set of errors that would have randomly produced a
hockey stick shape 99% of the time. Coincidentally, that's exactly
what they wanted to show.<br>
<br>
Now, if the IPCC wants to get some semblance of scientific integrity
back, they would demote Mann to stamping "IPCC Authorized" on all
their brochures down in the third level of the sub-basement of the
UN building (a few doors down from the guy that keeps the rifles
cleaned and the blue helmets polished and ready for their world
takeover ;)). The Hockey Stick chart was rather prominently
displayed, and then quickly removed once that paper was published.
It's not like they haven't realized that it was crap. <br>
<br>
Since the tendency of the UN and the media is to whitewash these
kinds of concerns, I remain skeptical and vigilant. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>
--------------------------------</div>
<div>You have so often presented errors and misrepresentations and
one sided pseudo-scientific claims regarding climate science,
that I immediately assume, maybe unfairly, what you present on
this topic is an expression of your agenda against climate
scientists in general. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have nothing against climate scientists as a group, just a few
individuals that are gaming the system (in my view). I'm sure, as a
whole, that climate scientists are nice people and are dedicated to
the pursuit of knowledge.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>And the fact you do not present well researched opposing
analysis that supports the science behind the hockey stick, in
your presentation against scientist Michael Mann, is an example
of your witch-hunt confirmation bias filtered approach to this
subject. You might consider a more balanced approach, and do an
in-depth study of everything involved with the following
website: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/12/deep-climate-investigation-of-denialist-and-%E2%80%9Cskeptic%E2%80%9D-attack-on-hockey-stick-temperature-record/"
target="_blank">http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/02/12/deep-climate-investigation-of-denialist-and-%E2%80%9Cskeptic%E2%80%9D-attack-on-hockey-stick-temperature-record/</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Read the PDF. Ross McKitrick goes into the problems with the hockey
stick chart in great detail. All I did was summarize it, probably
badly. <br>
<br>
Also, the web page you linked to is a great example of a political,
apologetic site. They throw the usual crap around. After their
paper was published, they were the darlings of the anti-global
warming crowd. They haven't published much, as if the number of
papers was more important that the quality of this one. They
attended debates sponsored by groups associated with Exxon/Mobil.
The Wall Street Journal had them on the front page. The success of
their critique inflamed two congressmen to investigate climate
scientists. The chairman of that committee may have plagiarized
something. This panel asked Steve McIntyre (the other author of the
paper referenced in the PDF) some technical questions. This
congressional committee, in no way connected to the McKitrick and
McIntyre other than being inspired by what they found out, was a
Republican setup. The blogosphere went nuts with their
conclusions. Some other people, inspired by M&M, have accused
climate scientists of manipulation of data. Michael Mann, a nice
fellow, is a victim in all this. The National Academy of Sciences
thinks the Hockey Stick is still A-okay. The earth is now at it's
hottest in 2,000 years, so the Hockey Stick must be correct.
Blahdeblahblahblah.<br>
<br>
What they conspicuously don't do is show where they were wrong from
a scientific or mathematical point of view. It's just damage
control.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Assuming all of the charges described below in your email,
against Mann, are correct, which is highly doubtful, if you
study the analysis just presented, this means one scientist's
credibility is in question. This does not undermine the
credibility of thousands of other climate scientists who in
general terms agree on the magnitude of human impacts on
climate, and that they will increase as human CO2 emissions push
up atmospheric CO2 levels, with other human impacts.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Why is it highly doubtful that the charges are correct? Because I
summarized them?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>What you have presented does not address this fundamental
fact, nor do you address the numerous other issues that you are
in error about regarding climate science, that I presented in my
first post in this thread.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In short, you are refusing to engage in an open and honest
dialog on this subject, where important mistakes are
acknowledged.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This undermines your credibility, to my mind, considerably.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And you have not addressed the criticisms of the Hockey Stick chart,
the subject of my post. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-QB6XbW6tZDn=eehPr528mXOJYD2HG=z1ws-WoejCE9ki_0g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> -----------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote"><br>
Here is why I don't trust one of the most prominent climate
researchers in the field.<br>
<br>
Let's talk hockey sticks. Here is a PDF put together by Ross
McKitrick, a member of the department of Economics and the
University of Guelph:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf</a><br>
<br>
The PDF does a much better job than I could ever do explaining
what the "hockey stick" debate is about, but I'll go ahead and
summarize it here. Please read the document for more details.<br>
<br>
Basically, Professor Michael Mann produced a graph in 1998
from various temperature proxies purporting to show the
surface temperature history for the past thousand years or so.
If you've even cursorily looked into climate science, you've
seen this graph. It's called a "hockey stick" because it's
more or less flat up until recent history where it turns
upward strikingly. This was featured prominently in the 2001
Third Assessment Report put out by the IPCC (the UN
International Panel on Climate Change).<br>
<br>
The tale this graph tells is a surprising one. Previously, it
was assumed that there was a period of time in the 1300s or so
where temperatures were much warmer than they are now (called
the Medieval Warm Period), followed by a period of time where
temperatures were much colder than average (called the Little
Ice Age). Current temperatures were thought to be on the
rebound from the LIA, presumably on their way back to MWP
temperatures. There was a graph of this in the IPCC report
that came out in 1990, which shows how canonical this idea
was. The hockey stick graph tells a different tale, though.
According to that graph, temperatures for the last thousand
years have been pretty much steady, albeit a little colder
than now. Lately, though, the temperature has sky-rocketed
upwards, presumably due to Man and his evil ways.<br>
<br>
In 2003, a retired minerals prospector and mathematician,
Stephen McIntyre, was curious about the graph and wanted to
look at the data. After some delay, the data was turned over
to him. He found out quickly, though, that he could not
replicate some statistical constructs necessary to the
analysis called principal components or PCs (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_components"
target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_components</a>).
He joined up with Ross McKitrick (the author of the PDF), and
they attempted to find out why things couldn't be replicated.
Initially, they found some errors relating to truncated
series, location labels, and other things, and found that if
the errors were corrected for and the PCs recomputed, the
hockey stick-like curve on the graph disappeared.<br>
<br>
They corresponded with Mann, who told them they had not
computed the PCs correctly. When they asked him for his
computer code, he refused to make it available. He also told
them they had the wrong data set, so they went to the FTP site
Mann pointed them to and downloaded the correct one (which was
almost identical to the one they had). They later found that
some of the code used to compute the PCs was actually present
on the FTP site, which explained why there were discrepancies,
Mann et al hadn't used the proper procedure for scaling his
PCs: instead of subtracting the mean for the whole series, he
only subtracted the mean for the 20th century. This causes
any series in the data that have a large increase in the 20th
century to be weighted much higher than any other random
series.<br>
<br>
McKitrick and McIntyre figured this out and showed how when
they ran 10,000 runs of random data using correctly computed
PCs, they almost never got a hockey stick shape in the data,
but when they ran it with Mann's method of computing the PCs,
they got a hockey stick 99% of the time.<br>
<br>
This is pretty damning stuff. They wrote it up for Nature
(where Mann's original paper was published) and they refused
to print it. So they went back and studied the data in more
depth, and concluded that a small number series of bristlecone
pines in North America were being severely weighted by the
incorrect PC calculation which was causing most of the
problem, and that when they removed just those series (from
5000 of them), the hockey stick went away. Now, the really
damning bit is that at that original FTP site was a folder
called "CENSORED" that contained evidence that Mann himself
had done this same analysis, and thus knew that his paper was
incorrect, and has done nothing about it.<br>
<br>
There is more (read the PDF for details), but that's enough to
show that Mann is not to be trusted.<br>
<br>
There is one other thing from the PDF that I find really
damning for Mann. In the PDF, a paleoclimatologist named
David Deming tells of how he had done some work with borehole
temperatures for the past 150 years that showed a warming
trend. Here is a quote from him that was in the PDF:<br>
<br>
"With the publication of the article in Science, I gained
significant credibility in the<br>
community of scientists working on climate change. They
thought I was one of them,<br>
someone who would pervert science in the service of social and
political causes. So one<br>
of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area
of climate change and<br>
global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have
to get rid of the<br>
Medieval Warm Period.”"<br>
<br>
The PDF was written in 2005, and the Climategate emails came
out in 2009. In one of them, Mann is quoted as saying to Phil
Jones (head of the Hadley Center) that "it would be nice to
try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet<br>
have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far
back". This email is from June of 2003. This tells me that
they didn't just make an error with their statistical
analysis, they deliberately misconstrued the data in order to
prove a political point (i.e. everything was just fine a
thousand years ago until Man mucked it all up). It wasn't a
surprising result that they innocently didn't recognize as an
actual error, it was a guided attempt to deceive others. In
my opinion, of course.<br>
<br>
This isn't just some lowly climate scientist wannabe, this is
arguably one of *the* main guys in climate science, and he
holds a lot of power at the IPCC. Certainly, the IPCC spammed
his hockey stick graph everywhere before McIntyre and
McKitrick published their paper.<br>
<br>
Now, the interesting thing is that the NSF recently
"exonerated" Mann from any research misconduct, (see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html"
target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html</a>).
But if you read the actual report from the NSF (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf</a>)
you find that they basically concluded that Mann was not under
their jurisdiction at the time he published his paper, that
his data is (now) available to researchers, that there were
concerns raised about his statistical analysis techniques
(which is the subject of this email), that he hadn't altered
any data (which wasn't as far as I can tell a charge ever laid
against him), and that his research has influenced the debate
greatly in the climate science community. Not exactly out of
synch with what Ross McKitrick says in his PDF, and hardly
"exonerating' him of his untrustworthiness.<br>
<br>
Anyway, it's time for dinner. There is far more I could write
about one the major climate researchers telling us to trust
them because they Know What They Are Doing, but this should
really be enough.<br>
<br>
It goes without saying that I am highly skeptical of anything
coming from Michael Mann.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Paul</font>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 08/26/2011 10:58 AM, Ted Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">An example of a "witch-hunt" on
Vision2020 is the extreme absurd claim<br>
there is international widespread incompetence or
political<br>
manipulation of climate science among thousands of
scientists in<br>
numerous scientific organizations around the globe, to
generate the<br>
international scientific consensus that human impacts on
climate are<br>
profound, and increasing as we continue to increase
atmospheric CO2<br>
levels and other human impacts.<br>
<br>
Paul Rumelhart godshatter at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://yahoo.com/" target="_blank">yahoo.com</a><br>
Thu Aug 25 18:04:41 PDT 2011 wrote:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-August/077920.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-August/077920.html</a><br>
<br>
"Maybe we should wait until we have something we<br>
know we should be angry about before we start venting
about it."<br>
---------<br>
Implying scientists are censoring journals or hiding
data based on<br>
criminally hacked and possibly altered private emails,
before a full<br>
independent investigation, is a good example of not
following the<br>
advice given above, an example of which be read at the
following<br>
Vision2020 post: [Vision2020] Hacked Climate Reseach
Unit E-mails:<br>
1,092 Responses to “The CRU hack”<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/067469.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/067469.html</a><br>
---------<br>
"...wait until we have something we know we should be
angry about..." ?????<br>
<br>
The author or this sage advice has refused to accept
that the<br>
scientists he quoted on Vision2020 from the email hack
of the Climatic<br>
Research Unit of East Anglia University in the UK, have
been<br>
investigated and cleared of any significant misconduct,
as the<br>
following two sources indicate:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/08/24/michael_mann_climategate_.aspx"
target="_blank">http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/08/24/michael_mann_climategate_.aspx</a><br>
<br>
"The final investigation report from the National
Science Foundation,<br>
published on Aug. 15, confirmed the initial
investigation results from<br>
a Penn State panel also investigating Mann’s research,
finding that<br>
“there is no substance to the allegation against Dr.
Michael E. Mann,”<br>
according to the document."<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists"
target="_blank">http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists</a><br>
<br>
"In the course of 2010, five investigations—three in the
U.K. and two<br>
in the United States—cleared scientists working for the
CRU and an<br>
American scientist working at Penn State University of
any scientific<br>
wrongdoing.<br>
<br>
That said, in my experience climate science is already
more open and<br>
transparent than most other scientific fields, with gobs
of data<br>
publicly available and many assessment reports and other
climate<br>
science products intended specifically for public
consumption<br>
(examples: here, here, here). No other field I can think
of has been<br>
laid so bare to public scrutiny."<br>
<br>
--------------------<br>
His witch-hunt has continued, with errors and
misunderstandings<br>
regarding climate science, repeated over and over,
coupled with a<br>
refusal to admit mistakes and misrepresentations of the
science on<br>
this subject, when they are clearly pointed out, as can
be read in my<br>
response on Vision2020 below:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-July/077266.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-July/077266.html</a><br>
<br>
[Vision2020] Climate& Science<br>
<br>
On 7/13/11, Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://yahoo.com/"
target="_blank">yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">I find it just as frightening that
*any* criticism of climate scientists<br>
is seen as a statement that there is a "paranoid
extreme conspiracy". I<br>
have good reasons for not trusting some of the major
figures in climate<br>
science. Mann, for example, and his "hockey stick"
graph.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Climate scientists criticize each other every day, and I
have never<br>
observed anyone behaving as though any criticism of
climate scientists<br>
implies a "paranoid extreme conspiracy."<br>
<br>
The paranoid extreme conspiracy mentality is expressed
by those who<br>
think the entire international field of climate science
is involved in<br>
a deliberate hoax to promote anthropogenic climate
change as a serious<br>
problem, aimed at a political or economic agenda. Many
of those who<br>
obsess on the email hack from the Climatic Research Unit
from EAU in<br>
the UK express this mentality.<br>
<br>
The very implication you are suggesting, that there is
to any<br>
significant degree in the world of science, or in media
or Internet or<br>
any form of public discourse, a level of censur occuring
that attacks<br>
any criticism of climate scientists as an expression of
paranoia, is<br>
itself an example of paranoia!<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">Climate science is a young field.
The first actual degree offered in<br>
climatology was a BS in climatology offered by the
University of South<br>
Queensland in Australia with the first enrollments in
the degree in<br>
2001. I think it's a bit soon in a field that looks
at time spans of<br>
30+ years to say that we've pretty much concluded what
the answers are.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
For one thing, study of climate science is often called
meteorology.<br>
Degrees in meteorology have been offered for decades,
though I don't<br>
know when the first one was offered. Thus some
scientific<br>
organizations focusing on climate are the World
Meteorological<br>
Organization and the American Meteorological Society.<br>
<br>
If you examine the degress of some prominent climate
scientists who<br>
have been publishing in the field for decades, you won't
find<br>
"climatology" as a degree title: MIT's Professor of
Meteorology<br>
Richard Lindzen, a very often quoted and interviewed
skeptic of a high<br>
value for climate sensitivity (i.e. human sourced CO2 in
the<br>
atmosphere has a limited impact), has degrees in physics
and math:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf</a><br>
<br>
NASA's climate scientist James Hansen, who in his book
"Storms of My<br>
Grandchildren" ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/"
target="_blank">http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/</a>
) called<br>
Lindzen the "dean" of anthropogenic climate warming
skeptics, has<br>
degrees in physics, math and astronomy:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html"
target="_blank">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html</a><br>
<br>
Climate science has been a major field of scientific
study for over<br>
100 years, at least since Nobel winner Arrhenius in
1896, sometimes<br>
referenced as publishing the first serious attempt to
quantify climate<br>
sensitivity. Here is long list of published scientific
studies of<br>
climate sensitivity, from 1896 to past 2006:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html"
target="_blank">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a><br>
Levenson in detail addresses the often heard comment
that climate<br>
models are untestable or unreliable here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html"
target="_blank">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html</a><br>
<br>
I recall you once wrote on Vision2020 Levenson's climate
sensitivity<br>
list reveals climate sensitivity to be "all over the
board." Yet when<br>
I responded that in fact all the results show
temperature increases,<br>
that none show temperature decreases from negative
feedbacks that<br>
overcome the radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2, so
therefore these<br>
results are not "all over the board," you ignored this
rather<br>
compelling fact.<br>
<br>
I dispute that climate science it is a "young" science,
as is often<br>
stated, to undermine the credibility of climate
predictions. It could<br>
be argued modern genetics is a younger science, given
DNA was not<br>
fully unraveled till the 1950s, yet we trust DNA
evidence in court.<br>
<br>
Climate science has researched time scales of millions
of years of<br>
Earths history, as anyone studying the subject knows, as
revealed<br>
here: "Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological
Record"<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange"
target="_blank">http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange</a><br>
<br>
The peer reviewed publication in this field are vast.
Consider just<br>
one, GFDL climate scientist Manabe's publication record,
164<br>
publications, from 1955 to 2011, counting articles now
"in press."<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php"
target="_blank">http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php</a>
Manabe is well know<br>
for publishing in 1980 what is sometimes considered the
first serious<br>
discussion of "polar amplification": Manabe, Syukuro,
and Ronald J<br>
Stouffer, 1980: Sensitivity of a global climate model to
an increase<br>
of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Journal of
Geophysical<br>
Research, 85(C10), 5529-5554. available in full (26
pages pdf) free<br>
here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf</a><br>
<br>
While on the subject of meteorology, read the statements
on human<br>
influenced climate change from the AMS and WMO:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html"
target="_blank">http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html</a><br>
<br>
How will climate change in the future?<br>
<br>
There will be inevitable climate changes from the
greenhouse gases<br>
already added to the Earth system. Their effect is
delayed several<br>
decades because the thermal inertia of the oceans
ensures that the<br>
warming lags behind the driving forcing. For the next
several decades<br>
there is a clear consensus on projected warming rates
from human<br>
influences among different models and different emission
scenarios.<br>
----------------------<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php"
target="_blank">http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php</a><br>
<br>
Since the industrial revolution, human activity has
increased the<br>
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (shown in
the graph to<br>
the right). The increased amount of gases which absorb
heat, has<br>
directly lead to more heat being retained in the
atmosphere and thus<br>
an increase in global average surface temperatures. This
change in<br>
temperature is known as global warming. The increase in
temperature is<br>
also leading to other effects on the climate system.
Together these<br>
affects are known as anthropogenic (human caused)
climate change.<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">There may indeed be a well funded,
politically supported junk science<br>
agenda, I wouldn't know. That's not where I get my
info.<br>
</blockquote>
How many times have you posted to Vision2020 defenses of
junk climate<br>
science websites and articles? More times than I can
count...<br>
<br>
I''ll reference one notable example, a website you have
referenced<br>
numerous times.<br>
<br>
National Snow Ice Data Center director Mark Serreze
called Anthony<br>
Watt's junk climate science website "Watts Up With That"
an expresion<br>
of "breathtaking ignorance."<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/realpolitic/worlds-oceans-warmest-on-_n_289210_31196131.html"
target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/realpolitic/worlds-oceans-warmest-on-_n_289210_31196131.html</a><br>
<br>
Yet you vigorously defended Watt's confirmation bias
filtered<br>
statements on Arctic sea ice extent predictions for 2010
from "Watts<br>
Up With That," with profanity laced responses, revealed
in the<br>
following Vision2020 posts from June and July 2010:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070679.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070679.html</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070799.html"
target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070799.html</a><br>
<br>
The final Arctic sea ice extent for 2010 refuted Watt's
scientifically<br>
irresponsible spring predictions, a result you never
followed up on<br>
regarding our discussion of Watt's confirmation bias
filter.<br>
------------------------------------------<br>
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/25/11, Rosemary Huskey<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com"
target="_blank">donaldrose@cpcinternet.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204,
204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">Paul,<br>
Please help us to understand what you mean by "witch
hunts" and "over<br>
reactions."<br>
<br>
<br>
Rose Huskey<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>